Talk:List of mountain passes in Washington

Requested move 16 June 2023

edit
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. After much-extended time for discussion, there is no consensus for the proposed mass-move at this time, and specific concerns as to certain of these titles, such as those in reference to federal lands, ferries, and infrastructure. BD2412 T 04:27, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

– These requested moves are a follow up to a previous discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles/Archive_61#Parenthetical_disambiguation_for_all_topic_articles where Reywas92 questioned the need for a batch of moves made by Thrakkx of Washington (state)-related lists and articles to include the (state) parenthetical disambiguator, including in cases where there is no Washington, D.C.-related analog to be disambiguated. Through work mostly by that user, many cases where a subject is covered on enwiki for both the state and the district now have disambiguation pages or set indices at the base name, which is fine when there is no obvious primary topic. In contrast, The articles I've compiled here currently either 1) have the base name redirect to article currently at base name (state), or 2) the page at the base name currently does not exist. In all cases above, there either is no D.C. analog to disambiguate (for example, the page I chose to host this discussion), the state topic is clearly the primary topic and the D.C. content can be linked in a hatnote, or there conceivably could be a D.C. analog, but enwiki currently does not have a good place to point users; regardless, the base name should host the content about the state. In cases where the base names are currently redirects, the article should be moved over the redirect per WP:MISPLACED. It also doesn't make sense for an article to have parenthetical disambiguation if there is nothing at the base name, per WP:DISAMBIGUATION. There are a few other cases I've left out of this request that I plan to deal with separately, either in a separate discussion or will create a disambiguation page at the base name or other bold actions. I hope this doesn't become a WP:TRAINWRECK, but please feel free to separate out any that merit further discussion if the there is general support for the majority of cases. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:06, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yes, a WP:HATNOTE may be added to serve the D.C. article, per WP:ONEOTHER if the state is deemed the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, as I believe it is. But I would be fine making Scouting in Washington a dab page too and there being no primary topic. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:43, 17 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Why would we make a whole dab page for 2 articles when, if you reach one, you might possibly want the other? Just add a note at the top of each and move on. Buffs (talk) 21:42, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
I think your assessment that this is a "trainwreck" is probably way overblown. To be blunt, if you select any of these and your get the "wrong" page for DC or the state, a link at the top should take you where you want to go in a single click and it should be obvious. The page naming convention is reasonable as-is, but I'm not opposed to moving them either. I think any extended discussion should be a simple !vote and let's just stick with it. If you have a policy-based argument that hasn't been noted, please add it. Buffs (talk) 21:46, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Buffs: I think you misunderstood my reference to WP:TRAINWRECK. It refers to the risk of being unable to discern a clear consensus out of a discussion where multiple pages are being discussed. It has nothing to do with the issues being discussed. As for disambiguation, if the state or DC are the primary topic, then the base name should bring users there, with a hatnote linking to the non-primary topic, per WP:ONEOTHER. In cases where there is no clear primary topic, i.e., users could equally be seeking the state or DC, then the base name must bring users to a two-item dab page, per WP:NOPRIMARY. We should follow WP:TITLES policy and WP:DISAMBIGUATION guidelines. Presently, the pages above do not. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
There's more than one way to fulfill that policy. Buffs (talk) 03:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Move all Parenthetical disambiguation is not needed in these cases and many others. While there are several "Washingtons" that warrant disambiguation for the top-level name by itself, the parenthetical does not need to be applied for all other cases as well. Even for articles where both places have similar articles, readers can easily enough tell that Washington, D.C. articles have "D.C." and the state's articles have just "Washington", and a hatnote may also be used because the state is often overwhelmingly the primary topic because people understand from context that Washington by itself is the state. For example, 96% of visitors to List of high schools in Washington go to the state article, 92% for List of colleges and universities in Washington, and 95% for List of law enforcement agencies in Washington.
For similar ideas, we have Mercury (planet) but Geology of Mercury, Depression (mood) but History of depression, and Prince (musician) but Prince videography. Reywas92Talk 23:46, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Having a WP:QUALIFIER when the WP:Base name doesn't exist is antithetical to WP:TITLES and WP:DISAMBIGUATION, as is having the base name redirect to a page with a qualifier. Things are not "fine as it is". Mdewman6 (talk) 03:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
generally more notable than the state implies you believe in most cases the D.C. topic should be primary, such as the example you give. Therefore WP:NWFCTM is relevant. I agree there should be disambiguation, if there is D.C. content to disambiguate, but in most cases I still believe the state is the primary topic and disambiguation should occur via hatnotes. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:48, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Sure, but is there a target that discusses ferries in Washington, D.C. in general? There would need to be a good target to disambiguate, either in a hatnote or as a dab page. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:40, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
But it is broke. Anyone searching the base name for those which are red above are out of luck. And for some of those that are blue, the user reaches the state article, but there are not hatnotes to content about D.C. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:36, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Simply delete the bluelinks, and the search function will take people to the choice between the state and DC -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 03:48, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
That is not how disambiguation works. And the search function is not the only way users reach articles. Mdewman6 (talk) 17:57, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
That is how disambiguation is currently working, as we can see all the redlinks in the proposed name list, so it is working that way already. -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 21:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Well, no, federal lands refers to land owned by the U.S. government, and the entire city of D.C. is not owned by the federal government. But, there is not an analogous list for D.C., and in most cases "lands" includes large areas like national forests, national parks, BLM lands, etc., so the state is the primary topic. But a hatnote to the most appropriate D.C. content would be appropriate, perhaps National Capital Parks or if we have to Template:Protected areas of the District of Columbia. Perhaps Reywas92 has a better idea. Mdewman6 (talk) 17:57, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 4 July 2023

edit
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Consensus to support move to the suggested titles, except List of Public Utility Districts of Washington (state) which will be moved to List of public utility districts in Washington per WP:LOWERCASE. (closed by non-admin page mover) ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 19:18, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply


– After the WP:TRAINWRECK that resulted above, let's try again. The above articles about the state either have no content about D.C. with which to disambiguate, or in a few cases there may be some content for the topic related to D.C., but the state is (in my opinion, at least...) the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC; in either scenario no parenthetical disambiguator should be used per article title policy (WP:QUALIFIER) and the article about the state should exist at the WP:Base name. In all cases above, either the base name currently redirects to the state, which means the base name is WP:MISPLACED, or doesn't exist; either way, the above articles should be moved to the base name as the only/primary topic. If there is a concern with specific moves, please indicate them explicitly to avoid another trainwreck. Other entries from the previous RM I will address in separate discussions or bold actions, or are moot. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Support move all None of these examples have ambiguity with Washington D.C., and there does not need to be a parenthetical merely because the related article does. I still strongly believe that a standalone "Washington" clearly represents the state in the vast majority of cases and people will be able to tell the difference from the lack of a "D.C." and the possible use of a hatnote. Reywas92Talk 02:58, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Ah, I missed that one. I support the disambiguation page at the base name and therefore withdraw City government in Washington (state). Mdewman6 (talk) 18:17, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Note: I have removed this article from the listing above because the bot isn't liking its presence there, WP:RMCD#Possibly incomplete requests. CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {CX}) 20:18, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
City government in Washington is withdrawn. I still believe the state is primary for Washington legislative districts, as legislative districts in the city are called wards, though a hatnote would be appropriate to List of members of the Council of the District of Columbia. As for the others, is there D.C. content to disambiguate? Certainly the state is the primary topic for wind power. I concur about the utility districts. Mdewman6 (talk) 18:17, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Actually, a better hatnote for D.C. wards would be Neighborhoods in Washington, D.C.. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:02, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
"Legislative district" here is used as a generic term, not a formal term, so could equally apply to the city. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Buffs:, the reason there was no consensus previously was because the net was cast too widely, and users had issues with some of the pages included, making it impossible to determine consensus. This is a different, pared-down proposal. I'll also note you did not oppose these moves in the previous RM. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:00, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
clarified... Buffs (talk) 02:03, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Also nudge @Raydann who said they were reviewing this over a day ago.
CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 03:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.